#1648: Mutt gcc4 issues
--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------
Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Type: defect | Status: assigned
Priority: high | Milestone: future
Component: BOOK | Version: a-SVN
Severity: normal | Resolution:
Keywords: |
--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------
Comment (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
But don't you think there is a reason that it is still be referred
to as a development version? We really need to explain this as it
directly conflicts with BLFS policy.
Just as Archaic mentioned yesterday about shadow: "Backporting the cvs
changes and creating a patch sounds like a viable option."
Don't get me wrong, I think doing whatever is necessary to allow the
package to build with the current toolchain is mandatory. If it
cannot be accomplished with a patch, then we just gotta do what we
gotta do.
I, however, don't think that we should migrate to development versions
of packages because of UTF-8 issues, though. We could mention the
updated development version on the Wiki or the "Locale issues" page,
but I'm more into keeping with the policy of using 'stable' versions.
Where do we stop? If it is acceptable to migrate to development
versions of packages because it provides enhanced functionality,
or fixing brokenness to areas of the package that are only meaningful
to *some* users, I'd bet we could update every BLFS package to a
development version.
This is simply my opinion though. YMMV. Don't do anything just because
of my opinion, please. Just consider it and do whatever you think is
best.
--
Ticket URL: <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/1648>
BLFS Trac <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs>
Beyond Linux From Scratch
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
